What happens if the Best Brains franchise agreement conflicts with the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act?

According to Best Brains' 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, if there is a conflict between the franchise agreement and the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, the provisions of the Act will take precedence. This means that any clause in the Best Brains franchise agreement that contradicts the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act is unenforceable in Washington. This protection is explicitly outlined in the Washington Addendum to the Disclosure Document.

This protection extends to various aspects of the franchisee-franchisor relationship. For example, RCW 49.62.060 prohibits Best Brains from restricting a franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees of other Best Brains franchisees or employees of Best Brains itself. Similarly, any statement or acknowledgment signed by a franchisee cannot waive claims under state franchise law or disclaim reliance on statements made by Best Brains. Provisions that prohibit a franchisee from communicating with regulators are also inconsistent with the Franchise Disclosure Document and unlawful under RCW 19.100.180(2)(h).

Furthermore, the Washington Addendum addresses specific issues such as non-competition covenants, indemnification, and attorneys' fees. Non-competition covenants are unenforceable against an employee of a Best Brains franchisee unless their annualized earnings exceed $100,000, or $250,000 for independent contractors. Franchisees are not obligated to indemnify Best Brains for losses caused by Best Brains' negligence, misconduct, or fraud. Also, franchisees are only required to reimburse Best Brains for legal costs if Best Brains is the prevailing party in a legal proceeding. These stipulations provide significant protection to Best Brains franchisees operating in Washington.